As someone who grew up homesteading and seeing the benefits of it, I find it wild that people want to not only send their kids away to school full-time but also institutionalize them afterwards just so they can spend seemingly excessive amounts of time at work. The economic machine demands sacrifices apparently.

▲

toomuchtodo 2 days ago | parent [-]

Sixty percent of Americans cannot afford a basic quality of life on their income in the US [1] [2]. Half of American renters are cost burdened [3]. I find it wild someone thinks "Why don't you just stay home with your kids?" looking at the macro. Can't all just live on a farm and homestead to raise kids in an unfavorable, punishing macro. Parents work because they have to work. To work, they need childcare and flexible work arrangements.

> "The economic machine demands sacrifices apparently."

Indeed. Is the solution to sacrifice for it? Or tax it to care for the human? [4] We can make better choices, as New Mexico shows. I'm tired of hearing its impossible. It isn't, it's just a lack of will and collective effort in that direction, based on all available evidence.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cost-of-living-income-quality-o...

[2] https://lisep.org/mql

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43119657

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paaen3b44XY

(I am once again asking to think in systems)

▲

evantbyrne 2 days ago | parent [-]

Nobody said homesteading is the solution. Allowing a parent of young children to care for them is not a radical idea though. It should not be hard to imagine a society that is more flexible to childcare being performed by parents, because that was the norm for all of human history prior to industrialization. People should seriously consider the ways in which their imaginations on this subject (and others!) are constrained by their post industrial upbringing, and importantly, why the current norms exist and who they benefit.

▲

toomuchtodo 2 days ago | parent [-]

Indeed, this only occurs with unions and rising wages, where a single income from a secure job can support a family while a parent stays home to perform childrearing. Are we there? When will we get there? These are important questions to ask if this is a dependency to improving household financials to encourage the outcome in this context (a stay at home parent).

If jobs are tenuous or insecure, long term financial obligations will not be made (the cost to raise a child in 2023 dollars is $330k, not including childcare or college). If jobs do not pay enough, people will need to put their kids in childcare (which will have to be subsidized) or they will forgo having children [1] [2].

[1] https://www.marketplace.org/story/2024/07/29/fewer-adults-ha...

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/reasons...

▲

evantbyrne 2 days ago | parent [-]

Regulation, my man. Doesn't require fitting into the existing framework that was invented to as a stopgap for dangerous factory working conditions. The barrier is people's preconceived notions on what work day, weeks, and lives have to look like.

▲

toomuchtodo 2 days ago | parent [-]

Can you expound on this? What regulation? What "preconceived notions on what work day, weeks, and lives have to look like"? Unions and higher wages enable people to afford families, and I am an aggressive proponent of a 4 day work week at 100% pay considering productivity gains over the last half century, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.

	▲	evantbyrne 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		There are infinite ways to do this and we could riff all day on it. The simplest as I see it would simply be giving individuals with young children the autonomy to dictate their work schedules, allowing them the option to make up the hours later, or even choose not to. In a way this already happens informally in nicer companies.